From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Mar 25 22:27:10 2002
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2PMRAR21087
	for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:27:10 GMT
Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2PMMQn27754;
	Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:22:26 GMT
Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g2PMJ20K004179
	for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:19:02 GMT
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g2PMJ2rS004178
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:19:02 GMT
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g2PMJ10K004173
	for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:19:01 GMT
Received: from imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.180])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2PMJ1v10276
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:19:01 GMT
Received: from modem-95.fluorine.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.8.95] helo=ben)
	by imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 16pcnr-0008Px-00
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:19:00 +0000
Message-ID: <008201c1d44b$bfecfde0$9f79893e@ben>
From: "Ben Ravilious" <ben@ravilious.net>
To: "BRITDISC" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
References: <4BAB64C45762D5119DE200508BCF33E601CB6499@zexchange01.qa.com> <EM9zLMBUp5n8EwBz@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: shaftin' and other difficulties
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:23:46 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Didn't Chris Hughes suggest something very much like this at the AGM about
two years ago? Didn't he get shot down for some reason?

Divisions seem an ideal answer to dealing with growth. There was a huge fuss
the day someone suggested dividing indoors up into regions - would anyone
question that now?

Ben



----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Retter" <druid#6@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Sent: 25 March 2002 21:44
Subject: Re: shaftin' and other difficulties


>
> Um,  I'm about to agree with Paul Meaney!
>
> >    In all honesty that is a fantastic idea. I mean - the top 8 teams
play
> >    each other regularly and get good competition over the weekend. The
two tier
> >    idea has been proposed once or twice
>
> In case anyone missed it, the two-tier structure has just been trialled
> in the 'London' Winter League.  There's some room for future
> improvement, but I'd say it was generally a success.
>
> >    (1) you are doubling the amount of tournaments which means we need
more
> >    people getting involved, finding a venue for 16 teams and doing it.
Risky.
> >    But IMHO it's doable, as currently there are limited venues which can
host an
> >    event the size of the tour
>
> I think it's VERY doable.
>
> >    (2) how do you handle crossovers?
>
> (without thinking about it in too much detail) a la Winter League, but
> bigger?
> e.g. hold a 16 team 'Div1' event and a 12-16 'Div2' event - and from one
> event to the next you relegate/promote 2 or 3 (or more?) teams*. And
> within each event you can still run the 5-12 crossover.
>
> * you need to think about this carefully, so that all the games are
> still relevant to something more than just promotion/relegation - e.g.
> seeding in the next event.
>
> >    (3) how do you handle nationals?
>
> I think you break Nationals into smaller divisions, e.g. of 8 (maybe
> even 6 ?), seeded by performance over the year - i.e. Tour results.
>
> Which rather ruins it's separate identity... but still gives options for
> a couple of upsets on the big day.
>
> Depending on format.
>
> >    (4) It means that people coming through don't get to see top flight
> >    ultimate. Which is not good as it means people don;t come away from
> >    tournaments having had the ability to watch top teams play and learn
from
> >    them, so the rate of learning slows.
>
> Yeah, and my propositions above lessen the interaction between the 'top
> flight' teams and the others.  I'm not so keen on that.
>
> So, we need to find ways to encourage 'top flight' teams/players to come
> to non-Tour events ? or have more top-to-bottom interaction somewhere
> along the line ?
>
> Wayne
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Wayne Retter
> mobile: 07970-903420
> w.retter@bigfoot.com
> office: 01737-273655
>